On Sunday, March 20, 2011, daonb <bennyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm in the middle of re-factoring a pretty active open parliament > project into 1.3. I've been an early adaptor of class based views, > using it of Jacob's fork. > > Migration to the beta was quite smooth except for two names that broke > my code: `pk` & `get_context_data`. The first comes from `models` and > is now used instead of `object_id` in urls and views. It also broke > compatibility with django-backlinks and I was forced to support both > `pk` and `object_id` in the view wrapper, ugly. The second name can be > rinsed and lose it's last 5 chars.
Hi Benny, Thanks for the feedback. However, I'm a little confused as to what you are proposing. The names used by the generic views are (as far as I am aware) internally consistent within the views, and with the old generic views. The choice to use pk instead of object_id was quite deliberate, because every object responds to pk, but not necessarily to id. Compatibility with third party libraries isn't really a consideration unless the general community has converged on a convention which a new Django feature has blindly ignored. In this case, I would argue that pk is the convention, and Django-backlinks is in need of an update. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
